Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 25, 2010 9:01am-9:31am PST

10:01 am
reasons i am here is that we do not want this to occur again to this project or in the future. the planning commission now has an opportunity to correct what is not understandable to the public. perhaps it would be good for the commission to have the department explain why there was a reversal in such a short period of time. i do not recall any change in policy that would allow this to occur on such a small, narrow street. we were told that the street was so wide that that you could build high-rises. in this case, it is 12 feet. >> thank you. are there any additional
10:02 am
speakers in support of the request your -- requestor? >> i live right across from the project. residents of this alley have signed this depicted in orange. 3 are owned by the project's sponsors and exist between the two alleys. there are some absentee landlords. 17 of the 22 lots are owned by property owners in opposition to this project. 100% of all of the buildings and
10:03 am
signed by owners and tenants oppose this project. in san francisco, it is very rare that landlords and tenants see eye to eye. in this case, they do. not so much relatives, friends, or passersby, but the actual occupants in the alley. there are 80 additional signatures from surrounding streets. there are other people that care about their neighborhood. it is obvious that the planning department disapproval from the director, zoning administrator, and previous planner was clear. the opposition showed by this chart is clear. these people cannot be wrong.
10:04 am
i hundley thank you for your time and attention. -- humbly thank you for your time and attention. >> next speaker. >> by our arrived in 1964 from switzerland as an immigrant. it was an immigrant visa to worked for two years. 40 years ago, i move to edith street. this is my home. i even had a good landlord. over the years, there have been many changes on the street. property owners should have the right to improve their property, but not at the expense of everyone else who lives there. the charming atmosphere of edith
10:05 am
street gives me the feeling that this is my home. most people who live in edith street stay there. the project is too high to blend in with the other buildings. edith street is a special place. if we sit back and do not do anything with this special neighborhood, then it is gone for all that follow. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is phillip williams. i am the owner of 19 edith
10:06 am
street. my home as 26 feet away from the development. i support my neighbors about the height and the bulk of this building degrading the beauty and character of the alley i l ive on. this new development claims to be an alteration of an existing 70-year-old building. making this claim, the project is able -- attempting to evade and force out planning requirements that would be a in a fact intended to limit the light and space.
10:07 am
if this were recognized for what it truly is, which is a demolition of an existing building -- all that i am asking you to do is to take a good look at the facade of the existing building and what is proposed and take a close look at the f loor plan of the existing building and what is proposed. apply the common sense that this is not an alteration. this is a demolition of a new building. as such, this is valid enough reason for considering a design review. >> thank you. >> i live directly across from the sponsor project.
10:08 am
i grew up there. i got married and moved away. i still come back. we are not against that building. we are against that four -- that fourth floor. we tried to work with them to come to a compromise. we have those projects. they were unwilling to do any of that with us without a way to meet them half way on certain things. that is why i feel that it \ the fourth floor should not be built. because of the shadows and the other pieces that would not be in keeping with the neighborhood.
10:09 am
>> my name is franklin. i own and live at a single- family home which is just to the east of the property. there are a couple of hundred people that are affected by this building. i would argue that i am perhaps the most affected. i came to san francisco in december, 1969. i lived most of that time on telegraph hill. five years ago i screwed up my courage and mortgage my soul to purchase my home. i regard these alleys as perhaps the most lovely and charming parts of this glorious city. i aspired to connect better to my community. i long to live among the stew of
10:10 am
italian and chinese, young and old, and gentrified and working class. they have the right to renovate and rebuild their homes. we have worked hard through this long and arduous process to work with a possible compromise. i thought early on that that could be effective. this massive building project, it could profoundly reform this. i urge you to reduce the size of this project. >> good evening, commissioners. i am stephen lee.
10:11 am
i have lived in this area of for 40 years since 1970. i am really against this building. it will be blocking all of the sunlight. i enjoy some light every day. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers in favor of the request third? seeing none, project sponsor. there is one mort? -- more? >> if i hear that ominous bell
10:12 am
once more, i will be encouraged to install it in our church. we have some long winded preachers. it is a little bit frightening. you have heard the pleas of all of these people. what else can we say? you have heard it so many times. we have understood it. we are with you. we think your going to be wonderfully lenient and courageous. these are my people. not only the ones that come to the catholic church, but everyone. we do not distinguish. they come and we welcome them even more than the people we see every day.
10:13 am
we love them all. i know you people know how much they care. this is a lovely place. let your conscience be your guide. >> we did not get your name, father. >> i thought my name was publicized already. >> my name is jack. i have been there for 18 years. i have been there since the 1970's. i had been there before. i have worked with the youth all of my life. i know when people hurt. god love you. >> are there any additional speakers in support of the
10:14 am
requestor? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the proposed addition has undergone a lengthy planning process since 2004. it has been through a critical review and scrutiny by planning staff including eight in design reviews. the process has culminated in a project that adds two residential units to the existing structure. it will be three stories over eight garage, which is typical of the area. the additional floors are to be set back over the additional structured to limit its impact and be respectful of the
10:15 am
community and neighborhood. let me address the three primary concerns of the applicants. appropriates setbacks, the shadows, and the height. more specifically, the elimination of the top unit. in regards to setbacks, we have undergone many revisions. in keeping with the guidelines, both the front and back lots are set back from the existing structure at the third and fourth floor levels, creating an appearance on both sides north and south. this color diagram, if we can have it on the overhead shows how we could have the different colors represent different levels. the top level is set back.
10:16 am
it actually aligns with 40, which is set back also. at the top unit has been set back the most. it is 800 square feet. that has always been our goal to create a code-complying condition. this is one of the few backyards in the area and contributes to an open feeling. in regards to shadows, peace -- in this proposed site is between two structures of similar height that already cast shadows. it is unique in the north-south direction. the rear facade faces north. the additional floors are a setback in a way that the rear facade is 45 units from across
10:17 am
the street. we understand that any vertical addition will generate shadows. with the setbacks and the orientation and location of the mpaps between the existing structures, we think that will not exist. in your packet, there are some shadow studies. in the wintertime, it is the worst. with regard to the neighbor adjustment to eliminate the top unit, please recognize that this is tucked in between two neighboring structures of similar height. it is modest and setback and consistent with its neighbors. they add character to the existing block and is a good example of urban influence.
10:18 am
a lot of the people i have heard tonight speak about four stories in height. it is not all about stories. some structures like the next- door neighbor have three stories. the back of his house is 36 feet high, close to 40. we have taken a survey using a laser minute -- blazer management tool. 80% of the buildings are very tall. the model of having three floors of living over a it garage is standard. this is a green solution. it complies with all planning code regulations and guidelines. we worked very hard to follow the rules and trust the direction of planning staff. we also trust in you to support
10:19 am
the staff recommendation. it has been a long road. commissioners, we respectfully request that you do not take discretionary review for this project. >> thank you. speakers in support a project sponsor, we have several speaker cards. ashley, william. >> ashley had to leave. >> dr. alan schneider. >> dr. schneider had to leave also. >> i am william bernard. i am the applicant in this matter. i am neither a real-estate developer or an absentee landlord.
10:20 am
i am a businessman landlord. i have lived here for over 20 years. >> please begin to the microphone so that we can hear you. >> members of my family have lived on the street for 20 years. my plan is to retire and join my family at that location. the only way to do that is to get the permission to approve the plan to put forward. there have been some misstatements here. 100% of the neighbors i heard are opposed to this. the neighbor it directly to the west does not oppose this. in your packet you will see that they have given a letter of support. i do not know why we are here talking about the past of what some planning commission did in the past. we are here with the present and
10:21 am
the future. if you looked at the exhibits, it is apparent that the planning commission the first time did not deny going forward with this matter on the base of its merit. they denied going forward because of neighborhood opposition. anytime you do something new, it is always more into -- in to oppose something rather than support it. consider the project validity itself. that is why we changed architects and one with a new architectural firm that brought a new plan to the department that the department fully complies with and approves of. >> thank you. >> [list of names]
10:22 am
i might be destroying your names. >> i am mariah and i am here in support of the project. >> i just wanted to say that i am in favor of the project as it is. thank you. >> good evening. i live at union street. i walk this neighborhood all of the time with my dogs. i know about her husband and her family. it is interesting that we're talking about the past. the planning department has approved this project. i recommend that we go forward. if you look at the houses in the
10:23 am
neighborhood, it is not the number of stories, but the height. it actually makes it more conforming to the street. >> thank you. >> chris, sonny, joellen. >> i have been a resident for over 20 years. my mother and father are applicants for this project. if i could thank staff for supporting the project, we appreciate all of their efforts. to say that this has been a challenging process is an understatement. we have worked with our neighborhoods. we have had numerous meetings with them. we have at least had it 12 different redesinggns of this
10:24 am
project. we like our neighbors, we are good neighbors. this project fits within the character of this neighborhood. it truly does. there were some statements made about the majority of the buildings in this area were 30 feet or less. from my estimates, over 70% of the buildings meet the 40-foot height requirement. this property has a 40-foot height limit. that is the zoning in the guidelines that were adopted by the city of san francisco. we are following those guidelines. hi would ask any commission members that you would consider approval of this project, if not take discretionary review.
10:25 am
>> i am sending peterson. i am a newcomer. i came to san francisco three years ago and fell in love with it. you are in an unenviable position. you are given the task of keeping san francisco's character and keeping the city forward thinking and progressive. it is incumbent upon you as a board to balance the forward thinking and the evolution of the city with the preservation of the past. since you cannot hear from every citizen affected by every change, there are guidelines that have been set. they do support this project. this board has established this to add to the architectural diversity of san francisco. that is one of the reasons i moved here.
10:26 am
it is a beautiful city. i think this project maintains that. >> like a lot of the people here today, i think that edith alley is beautiful and quaint. i have seen the plans. the building and expansion matches the site. i think it would be a good addition to the neighborhood. i support this product. >> and judith shapiro, julia bernard, darla bernard. >> my name is to this shapiro -- in judith shapiro. i am a newcomer to san francisco.
10:27 am
i move briefly to 30 edith when i first came here because i had no place to stay. i bought in the neighborhood on lombard street. anytime anybody moves to improve their home also improves the neighborhood. i think they have tried very hard to make this fit into the neighborhood. you cannot please everybody all of the time. you do the best that you can. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here as a friend. i think the monster in the closet -- there are people are brown heard that have added to her buildings. they cannot add to the building. they have demonize this woman. she is a three-time cancer
10:28 am
survivor. this has been a difficult struggle for her and her family. it has been my experience in the 25 years of appearing before the commission that you tend to believe the hard work that the department does. the department is recommending approval of this project and not taking on the discretionary review. in addition to granting on about property rights propertyranting -- ranting on about property rights, i am here in support of the project. >> good evening. i am julia bernard. a lot of people have talked about a project or a development.
10:29 am
this is our home. but this is not only darla and tom's home, the home of myself, my husband. in addition for it to being a home and not a project, it is also adding units to san francisco. that is a good thing, having more rental units in san francisco. i would ask that we remember that this is a home, not just the project or a development. it fits within the guidelines. it fits within the code. we are not asking to do anything that does not allow. -- is not allowed. we are asking to build the home that my in-laws --
10:30 am
>> taylor, kylee, brad. >> commission members. my name is brad taylor. i am here in support of the project at 30 edith. i believe this is a piece of urban infill that is what the city of san francisco is asking for. it adds to our housing stock. it is appropriately respectful of the other buildings on edith alley. it will inject several hundred thousand dollars into the local economy. several of the other speakers have said that the project will add